Since Wikipedia's creation in 2001, it has grown to become one of Encyclopedia Britannica's biggest competitors. The author's first main point is that although Wikipedia may not be as credible as Encyclopedia Britannica because it allows public editing, thousands of people rely on the site as their primary source of information.
Along with that, however, comes his point about how Wikipedia's policy on web editing allows for much abuse, which takes away from the site's credibility. The site is vulnerable, subject to revision by anyone, and it's not rare to see politicians and professionals tampering with their own entries.
Wikipedia draws so many viewers and editors because it is so current; to use the author's example, Wikipedia had an entry on American Idol's newest season shortly after its premier episode. Unlike other encyclopedias, it changes and evolves as the world does as well.
While Wikipedia does contain a large number of errors, there are people committed to making the site a reliable source of information by frequently correcting errors and editing text. There are other actions the site has taken to reduce the number of errors and vandalism to the site, including the watchlist and also by allowing "checkusers" to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse.
The article takes a shift and talks about the many criticisms of Wikipedia, the most obvious one being that virtually anyone with a computer can write anything on the site. This of course goes back to a former point that this leads to vandalism and unreliability. Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't have very many ground rules when posting articles; one thing they do ask is that information posted in an article comes from a published source. The problem with this is that even information on the web is often unreliable. If that information pours into Wikipedia, bad or inaccurate information is just being transferred and not corrected.
2. An important part of credible writing is selecting good supporting evidence. Select a passage from this article that illustrates the effective use of supporting detail. Explain why you think it is particularly effective.
"One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries...Gradually, Essjay found himself devoting less time to editing and more to correcting errors and removing obscenities from the site."
One of the criticisms of Wikipedia is that it allows anyone to add to the site, leaving lots of room for vandalism and abuse. In the article, the author says that although Wikipedia loses credibility because of this, there are those who are working to make it a reliable source by fixing these errors. The author backs up his argument by telling the story of a user called Essjay, who began devoting his time solely to correcting errors and vulgarities on the site instead of editing. This is effective because it shows that there are those who are working to make Wikipedia more accurate, and just because it's an open site doesn't mean it's full of false information. Instead of just saying there are people who are taking action against vandalism on the site to make the site's visitors less concerned, the author sites a specific example of this.
3. Throughout the article, the author compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but not specifically on design. How would you compare the two encyclopedias from a design perspective?
If you go to the home pages of both sites, Wikipedia's is much simpler and easier to understand where to start. On Encyclopedia Brittanica's home page there is the search bar at the top, and on the left side there are sub categories like science and technology, arts and entertainment, etc. The site's home page is more colorful and viscerally appealing whereas Wikipedia doesn't catch the eye because there's no color. However, if someone whose first language isn't English, they'll find it easier to start with Wikipedia because of its language option at the beginning.
Searching on both sites is easy because the search bar is very visible. After searching on both, the layout of the sites is very different. Wikipedia offers a brief summary of the topic before heading into sub categories. This summary is useful for someone who just wants to get an overall idea of a subject. Below that is an outline of the page, which is convenient for someone who only cares to read about one subcategory. Both list references and external links at the very end.
A page on Wikipedia looks more confusing at first because there are boxes of information to the right as well as pictures, so the site looks more cluttered. On Encyclopedia Brittanica, however, there isn't anything like this that steers the viewer away from the actual article. Some people may like the extra information off to the side, but others may think it is just more confusing and unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment